LAND AND INDUSTRY

Southland Times, Issue 20616, 15 October 1928, Page 11

LAND AND INDUSTRY

LABOUR PART’Y DUAL POLICIES. . The New Zealand Labour Party’s objective is stated in its constitution as:— ‘The socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange.” That stamps it as a socialist party. Its trouble is to translate that formula into definite political planks which will accord with the socialist objective and yet secure the confidence of electors. In order to win votes it 1 has changed its platform and camouflaged its I Red objective by inserting matter entirely lat variance with socialism. The re--1 suit is a patchwork production. SecI tion 2, clause 2, of its platform reads ' ‘‘Full recognition of owners’ interest in all land, including tenure the right of sale, transfer and bequest.” That is a declaration of individualism not socialism, if it is honestly intended. Then under the headings “Finance and State Ownership” it declares for “State banking, Shipping Service, farms, mines, factories, industries and all branches of insurance.” These planks are socialistic. In section 3 Clause 5, it affirms the following, “Where national ownership of an industry is affected all labour for such industry and at least half the board of control in each case shall be appointed by the union or unions affected.” In that clause the party declares for a policy of syndicalism. The Unions are to control the industries, not the Government elected by the people. We see here the two up policy of the party. To the industrial workers it presents a policy of socialism, State ownership and monopoly in all directions.

Then to the farmers it presents a policy of individualism assuring them it will not disturb their titles, but recognize their rights of sale, transfer and bequest. It is a remarkably cunning programme. Socialism for those who may be s caught by it and individualism for those who would not have the other. The platform with which this party faced the 1925 elections was at least more consistent. It was socialistic as applied to land as well as to other economic affairs. It proposed as applicable to all land “a land tenure based on occupancy and use.” It further made plain that the purpose of the party is to nationalize the land by declaring:—“That privately owned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the State.” Use And Speculation.

In the discussion on the Land Settlement Amendment Bill this session the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, said: “The element of speculation was prominent in New Zealand.” The Minister of Finance interjected, “your policy allows speculation” and Mr Holland replied: “The Labour Party’s programme lays downs that the land must be put to use.” Now both were correct but they were referring to different parts of the platform. Clause 2 allows full right of sale and transfer and a certain amount of speculation is incidental thereto. Clause 5, however, provides that in the case of land acquired by the Crown it shall be leased “conditional on occupancy and use.” This advantage of having a double headed policy you can always prove your opponent wrong. At least to your own satisfaction. If he says the programme is socialist you point to the individualist section ; if he says it is individualist you quote the socialist part. After all there is much useful land that is the outcome of speculation. To stop private ownership in order to prevent speculation, which is the socialist party idea, is no more rational that it would be to prevent men from walking for fear they should be run over. Questions to Answer.

The questions which Mr. Holland and his followers have to answer are these. For what reason did they delete from their platform the plain words of these two clauses. (1). “A land tenure based on occupancy and use.” (2). “That privately owned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the State.” If the “usehold tenure” is right for acquired land why not for all? If their aim is public ownership of land, why have they stuck on transferring the land to the State? The fact is that their policy is not straight. It is of a dual character —a yes—no policy designed to catch votes by making different professions to the country people to whose they make to the city and town workers. In respect to industrial affairs they are all for Arbitration at one time and for “control of all industries by the workers who operate them,” at another, which would leave no employers to arbitrate with. Behind all is its socialist purpose which it is seeking to hide in order to win votes. (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League.)